What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well this is the second time I have posted it on this site and you can see from the date that it has been there for some time and you are the first
person who has ever said it is not runnable. It is discussed on Gregory Urich's site and they never said any such thing.

This does not surprise me. You do not significantly test your own conclusions as you are far too over-confident in them. It's also a common malady
with many 'independent researchers', who only give a crap about their own conclusions and will take your word that your code works.

I have copied down and tried both programs. I did get an error with the one at BreakFor News. The one on Urich's site worked fine with the
data on BreakFor News. The Collapse time took 12.9 seconds.

I will have to see why one doesn't work. I haven't tried it in some time.

It is incomplete, the code is not finished.

The collapse time takes 12 seconds with equal masses and up to 14 seconds if bottom heavy. But that is with no supports needing to be crushed
or broken. So how could a real building that had to hold itself up come down in less than 25 seconds due to the top 15% falling on the rest? All of
the people supporting the Official Story need to come up with excuses and maintain confusion and the Physics Profession needs to keep
quiet.

No Psik, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Your code is terrible and I don't mean that as a personal insult, I mean I would fire
someone who produced it. It uses a 'timestep' but with no real understanding of how to use timestep simulations. Furthermore, there is no need
whatsoever to use a timestep simulation, as all the parameters are known.

While you fix your code, I'll rewrite it. I'm busy for the next hour or so handling another big-ass cross compile, but when I am done I'll write
what you intended to write and we can compare the results.

Originally posted by jlm912
3 out of 22 is more than a 10% difference of error. In regards to the total weight, you're essentially saying the outer structure was 10% of the gross
weight, exponent? How confident are you in that inference?

That wasn't the inference. Lets pick Level 10 for an example. I used Gregory Urich's work as it is by far the most cross checked and consistent. At
level 10, the external steel weighed 351,560kg or 351 tons. The total mass of this floor however, is 2,306,990 kg, or 2307 tons.

Therefore at level 10, the exterior structure occupied approximately 15% of the mass of that floor.

That is the curious thing. Math is not physics. The point is not the percentage of mass of the LEVEL. What is the mass used for?

Weren't the core and the perimeter columns what supported the weight of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE the tenth level? Doesn't all of that weigh a LOT MORE
than the 10th level. The NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the building's weight. So if Urich took away 13% of the weight of the
perimeter columns weight then wouldn't that have the effect of removing about 13% of the strength if that happened in the Real World? So wouldn't
making the bottom of the building weaker while making the top heavier increase the probability of collapse?

So changing the data changes the analysis and conclusions drawn from that analysis.

So shouldn't our SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS have been demanding accurate data TEN YEARS AGO?

No Psik, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Your code is terrible and I don't mean that as a personal insult, I mean I would fire someone
who produced it. It uses a 'timestep' but with no real understanding of how to use timestep simulations. Furthermore, there is no need whatsoever to
use a timestep simulation, as all the parameters are known.

When you produce code that shows the conservation of momentum does not slow the collapse down I will pay significant attention. The Conservation of
Momentum can't do anything else. Any problems with my code does not let you people off the hook of explaining how the buildings came down so fast.
The timebase has the advantage of being simple. If you want to believe physics is about proving you are smart that is your business. Writing fancy
code may do that but it will not change the physics. Dr. Sunder still said the north tower came down faster then the Conservation of Momentum could
allow it to.

So what will happens if you write better code and your code says the building should have taken longer to come down than mine? Does that mean you WIN
or does that mean you LOSE?

Originally posted by exponent
No Psik, it is not their fault, it is your fault. Your code is terrible and I don't mean that as a personal insult, I mean I would fire someone
who produced it. It uses a 'timestep' but with no real understanding of how to use timestep simulations. Furthermore, there is no need
whatsoever to use a timestep simulation, as all the parameters are known.

While you fix your code, I'll rewrite it. I'm busy for the next hour or so handling another big-ass cross compile, but when I am done I'll write what
you intended to write and we can compare the results.

I have conceded there was a problem with the code at BreakFor News. I provided a link to Urich's site. I have downloaded and tested both. I have
provided the output. The BreakForNews site does take out backslashes though. I have no control over that.

If you want to cry about it and say you don't like my code be my guest.

Is something stopping you from writing a program from scratch to show my results are significantly in error?

You will notice I admitted from the start it was a kludge program that used a constant timebase, but we are talking about a time variation from 9
seconds at the minimum to 25 seconds at the maximum and Dr Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds. But just using the
Conservation of Momentum to slow my simulated masses down I get more than 11 seconds. And I coded my collisions to err on the side of a fast
collapse.

So all of you people who claim airliners could do it have to explain how the Laws of Physics were violated for those buildings to come down in such a
short time. Complaining about my program is just a trivial distraction. The people on Urich's board already said it passed the sanity check.

Thanks for letting me know the BreakForNews version was screwed up. But it shows how much people do not verify things enough. When I upload code I
download it again and rerun it. Lots of websites cause changes. I don't know when was the last time I checked BreakForNews.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Weren't the core and the perimeter columns what supported the weight of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE the tenth level? Doesn't all of that weigh a LOT
MORE than the 10th level. The NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the building's weight. So if Urich took away 13% of the weight of the
perimeter columns weight then wouldn't that have the effect of removing about 13% of the strength if that happened in the Real World?

No, in the real world the columns were mostly detached from the floor structure and each other, rather than being significantly affected. That's why
you see huge sheets of columns detaching, because they surrounded a weak floor structure which was the 'path of least resistance' (to borrow a
truther idiom).

When Bazant did his calculations, he used masses which were estimates, these estimates were not as great, and so Urich did his own. You can't pick
and choose to support your case without reasonably justifying it, which you are not doing.

So wouldn't making the bottom of the building weaker while making the top heavier increase the probability of collapse?

No, as there is no 'probability of collapse' being calculated. In all existing frames of reference, the probability is 1, 100%, definite. This is
because the maximum possible strength of the columns has been calculated and would be insufficient. Not only this but in the real world we know that
the energy used for failure would have been much lower.

So changing the data changes the analysis and conclusions drawn from that analysis.

So shouldn't our SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS have been demanding accurate data TEN YEARS AGO?

No, because they understand the principles of what they are studying. They understand how to do sensitivity studies. You do not.

If you want to cry about it and say you don't like my code be my guest.

Is something stopping you from writing a program from scratch to show my results are significantly in error?

Yes, I'm in the middle of rebuilding a big infrastructure and I want to wait until I've finished debugging and building, another 90 minutes or so
hopefully but I'll get it to you shortly no matter what. Of course it is just a bunch of calculations that could be done by hand but that's up to
you really.

You will notice I admitted from the start it was a kludge program that used a constant timebase, but we are talking about a time variation from
9 seconds at the minimum to 25 seconds at the maximum

How have you set an upper bound time? It seems to me that you've just invented it. It's not supported by your program results, nor any calculations
I've seen you carry out. In reality we're talking about a time >= 8.5s, that's it.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Weren't the core and the perimeter columns what supported the weight of ALL OF THE LEVELS ABOVE the tenth level? Doesn't all of that weigh a LOT MORE
than the 10th level. The NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the building's weight. So if Urich took away 13% of the weight of the
perimeter columns weight then wouldn't that have the effect of removing about 13% of the strength if that happened in the Real World?

No, in the real world the columns were mostly detached from the floor structure and each other, rather than being significantly affected. That's why
you see huge sheets of columns detaching, because they surrounded a weak floor structure which was the 'path of least resistance' (to borrow a truther
idiom).

OOPS!

I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.

Changing the time base from a 1/100th of a second to 1/1000th of a second causes a 4% change. From 12.9 seconds to 12.45 seconds.

But the issue of this computerized thought experiment is that no supports are broken. It is just mass slowed down by hitting mass. In a real
building connections must be broken. Steel must be bent. Concrete must be cracked. That would cause greater deviation than crappy code. So how did
the buildings come down so fast?

I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.

psik

Large quantities of core structure survived the initial destruction wave down the tower. This indicates that it did not provide significant structural
interaction as it was surprisingly straight and well connected. Why are you still confused by this 10 years after the fact?

I read a bit of that thread in the other forum, and people were calling your code out on its dubious functioning within a page. What a shock that you
immediately dismissed their criticisms. Do you appreciate that a timestep function is completely useless? Do you understand why? Why did you pick it?

I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.

psik

Large quantities of core structure survived the initial destruction wave down the tower. This indicates that it did not provide significant structural
interaction as it was surprisingly straight and well connected. Why are you still confused by this 10 years after the fact?

I read a bit of that thread in the other forum, and people were calling your code out on its dubious functioning within a page. What a shock that you
immediately dismissed their criticisms. Do you appreciate that a timestep function is completely useless? Do you understand why? Why did you pick it?

I had to explain to them what I was doing. Every collapse simulation you see has the top block treated as a single unit. I treated 14 floors as
separate units moving independently. Nobody had done that before. That is part of why I use a time base, to handle separate motion and separate
collisions. My program has components hitting the lowest falling portion from above rather than having only collisions below.

You people who think in the same rut presume everybody is either in that rut or stupid. But then you can't compute the energy required for floors to
break loose from the core while you say the core was not involved in the collapse. Wouldn't breaking loose from the core have to slow them down?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I had to explain to them what I was doing. Every collapse simulation you see has the top block treated as a single unit. I treated 14 floors as
separate units moving independently. Nobody had done that before. That is part of why I use a time base, to handle separate motion and separate
collisions.

There's no need for this. You can handle things atomically (note: i don't mean on the atomic scale).

You people who think in the same rut presume everybody is either in that rut or stupid. But then you can't compute the energy required for
floors to break loose from the core while you say the core was not involved in the collapse. Wouldn't breaking loose from the core have to slow them
down?

Well yes I, as someone who reviews and checks the quality of code quite a lot, I feel that I can claim authority over whether your code is terrible or
not.

Of course disconnecting floors from the core takes energy, but the time it takes is not a simple derivation. If you feel (and you clearly do) that you
can estimate the time it takes to failure, please post your estimation and its basis.

I see in the REAL WORLD the Core Columns disappeared again along with the horizontal beams that connected those columns.

psik

Large quantities of core structure survived the initial destruction wave down the tower. This indicates that it did not provide significant structural
interaction as it was surprisingly straight and well connected. Why are you still confused by this 10 years after the fact?

I read a bit of that thread in the other forum, and people were calling your code out on its dubious functioning within a page. What a shock that you
immediately dismissed their criticisms. Do you appreciate that a timestep function is completely useless? Do you understand why? Why did you pick it?

What he said was"

Re: Crush-down models

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat May 08, 2010 10:08 am

psikeyhackr, I think you might want to check your program. This is a plot of newvel versus Time for each collision:
Otherwise, collapse time during crush down phase is pretty close to 11.6 sec, seems to pass sanity check. I mean, it's better than in the ballpark,
though how I'm not sure at the moment.

The other thing you might want to consider is allowing for something other than infinite compaction. You're quite a stickler for accurate figures,
it's a pretty safe bet the debris layer was not zero thickness. Your fall is from the roof to the pavement. Running momentum only with zero stretch
gives a crush down time of 11.6 sec, but with stretch = 0.2 (5x compaction) the time is only 10.37 sec.

Re: Crush-down models

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat May 08, 2010 6:13 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:Are you thinking the upper block is all moving together.

Yes, I was. That explains a lot. Very interesting.

No one else has 14 independently falling masses engaging in separate collisions. They made assumptions about what the code did and it did not
correspond to their assumptions.

But then he could not figure out why it was still in his ball park. The time base makes sense in relation to what I was doing. Treating the upper
block as solid while treating the lower portion as separate components is what makes no sense. So I treated them all as separate components.

Originally posted by exponent
Well yes I, as someone who reviews and checks the quality of code quite a lot, I feel that I can claim authority over whether your code is terrible or
not.

Of course disconnecting floors from the core takes energy, but the time it takes is not a simple derivation. If you feel (and you clearly do) that you
can estimate the time it takes to failure, please post your estimation and its basis.

There is no way for the magical system to not collapse. People who say the real building should collapse must account for the energy to crush and
break components.

My floating masses are held up by magic. It is a thought experiment simulated in a computer. No energy must be expended breaking or bending
anything. But why does it still take so long just because of the Conservation of Momentum? Dr. Sunder is saying a real building came down faster
than my thought experiment under physically impossible conditions. Code has nothing to do with it.

Sure I could compute the time of whether a mass coming from behind would catch up with the accreting mass sooner than the accreting mass would hit the
next stationary mass. It would be more elegant and precise.

But I don't give a damn as long as it passed the sanity check. The trouble is the straight down collapse of a skyscraper does not pass the sanity
check so let's see your code give a significantly different time than mine. 9 seconds is the minimum because that is free fall. If 12 seconds is
the result with no breakage then how could a real building get anywhere near that?

I don't see what the upside is for you. So you can write better code that proves my point. Hurray for you.

My favorite has to be .......are you ready for this? ......"The vibration of the twin towers being hit, and the jet fuel traveling through the sky,
brought down building 7".....this comes from my sister.......This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with Keith Hernandez......"The lugie stops in
mid air mind you, does a 180° turn, striking Kramer in the temple......that is one amazing lugie"...Lol

Originally posted by scully222
You keep referring back to a theory and claiming it as truth and evidence. Telling me which columns when and where is 100% based on the best working
theory offered by the so-called experts.

No they're not 'so-called' experts. They are world renowned experts. Stop trying to diminish your opponents qualifications. It shows your position
to be weak.

There is zero solid evidence to back up this theory only findings that could be seen as consistent with this theory. There is exactly as much
solid evidence for controlled demolition as there is for the pancake theory, which is none.

Nonsense, just because you can write it on the internet does not make it remotely true. For example, if explosives were set off to remove each level,
why is it that the truss floor seats are noticably absent? Why is it that the whole building was bowing inwards before collapse? Why is it that the
Penthouse failed and windows at a low level smashed many seconds before collapse?

The 'official story' provides parsimonious explanations for these events. Your theory is 'well they might be evidence but i dont know'. That is
not a superior theory.

The only difference is the pancake theory is more accepted. Acceptance is not evidence. Most people thought the earth was flat long ago, but
acceptance did not make it true. The only evidence we have is 3 destroyed buildings and a lot of questions.

And years of reporting and understanding by the foremost minds in Structural Engineering. Reports accepted by the whole community of Structural
Engineers, but dismissed entirely by you, because you don't want to believe it.

It's just absolute nonsense, you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and then act as if you have a strong case because you've already
ignored the actual answers. It's completely childish and ineffective. Explain one of those things I listed above in a way that is not matched by the
'official story' and I might be interested. If you cannot, you're admitting your theory explains less. Of course, you can't even tell me what type
of explosive was used, so I don't hold out much hope.

edit on 28/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

Your "world renowned" experts are no smarter or more astute than the experts who are a part of Architects & Engineers for 911 truth:

I view these over 1500 experts as true patriots and hero's considering the fact that supporting the truth movement at this time is in effect career
suicide. Do you think this makes them ignorant or do you think they feel very strongly about their reasoning and theories?

All the items you listed above as being proof of the official theory are also consistent with a controlled demolition. There is no need to go point
by point and second by second through each collapse when the cause was a controlled demolition since this has been demonstrated in the real world
1000's of times. The only reason we see such intricate descriptions of every subtlety of the collapses is due to the fact that what they are trying
to explain has never happened and they can't seem to create a model that repeats what they claim. So they go into incredible detail to give the
theory an air of credibility.

A controlled demolition also explains these observations from the collapses:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed.

You claim to have "actual answers" when all you have is a cobbled together theory that can't be reproduced in a computer model let alone a
physical one. You claim that the official theory is accepted by the whole community of structural engineers but we have thousands who are part of
AE911truth.org that disagree. These are false claims. Controlled demolition explains EVERYTHING that happened to the buildings so it is no less of a
theory. The explosive most likely used was thermite due to the fact that it was found in the dust from the collapse. However proving that is
impossible since any evidence had been removed from the scene within weeks. Trying to belittle me and calling me a child is totally uncalled for. I
was beginning to have fun with this but now you are starting to throw a tantrum. Not quite so fun any more.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My floating masses are held up by magic. It is a thought experiment simulated in a computer. No energy must be expended breaking or bending
anything. But why does it still take so long just because of the Conservation of Momentum? Dr. Sunder is saying a real building came down faster
than my thought experiment under physically impossible conditions. Code has nothing to do with it.

I haven't actually checked your code yet, because I went to look into your floor positions and realised you just did 12 * 110.

Psikey. It is a decade after 911, you've been parading yourself around as an expert on the towers now for a long time, you claim that you need
accurate values, but your own model here is hilariously inaccurate.

Not only that, but you use a timestep + overshoot model without even realising or compensating for it.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Do you really think this model provides any useful information whatsoever? Because I don't
believe it does. I've produced my own list of floor heights that actually ends up at a roof (which you forgot about) that weighs the correct amount
and is 1368ft high. I'll get to your python code shortly.

But I don't give a damn as long as it passed the sanity check. The trouble is the straight down collapse of a skyscraper does not pass the
sanity check so let's see your code give a significantly different time than mine. 9 seconds is the minimum because that is free fall. If 12
seconds is the result with no breakage then how could a real building get anywhere near that?

This is an entire symmetric momentum conservation. That didn't happen, the upper block didn't have to accelerate the mass of the entire floor. It
had to break and accelerate small sections of trusses. You're using the earliest possible time as the limiting case, which is dishonest.

I don't see what the upside is for you. So you can write better code that proves my point. Hurray for you.

No Psikey. What I can learn from this is that you have literally no clue about what, or how you are supposed to be modelling something. You've
been going around for years and discussing how you need data that is more than 1% accurate, but now we discover that your own attempts are so woeful
that you didn't even get the height of the towers right.

Is this why you needed accurate data? To model a tower that doesn't even have a roof? It's a joke Psikey and I would hope you'd admit that indeed
your model was terrible, I predict your next post will be arrogantly stating that it's right anyway.

I view these over 1500 experts as true patriots and hero's considering the fact that supporting the truth movement at this time is in effect career
suicide. Do you think this makes them ignorant or do you think they feel very strongly about their reasoning and theories?

I think the vast majority of them have said and approved nothing whatsoever. There are not '1500 experts' there. There are many experts in other
topics, but last time I checked I found under 50 Structural Engineers, none with any published criticisms.

The experts I am talking about are for example Bazant, an ISI highly cited scientist who literally wrote the book on a lot of this structural
paper. He is the person people cite when they talk about concrete breaking up, for example.

Trying to leverage a small group with no publications to their name and such ridiculous claims as micro-nukes in their personal statements, is not
going to be effective. The ASCE for example has literally over 100,000 engineers on their rolls, and has not been calling for a public
investigation.

All the items you listed above as being proof of the official theory are also consistent with a controlled demolition. There is no need to go
point by point and second by second through each collapse when the cause was a controlled demolition since this has been demonstrated in the real
world 1000's of times.

The fact is you have no answer to the points I raised, and so you have to weakly fall back on quoting AE911Truth's site. If you think you have a good
explanation, explain the inward bowing of exterior walls. No demolition method can possibly cause this.

You claim to have "actual answers" when all you have is a cobbled together theory that can't be reproduced in a computer model let alone a
physical one.

On the other hand, you literally had no answers and had to resort to copying and pasting from a site telling you what to think. Good job there.

You claim that the official theory is accepted by the whole community of structural engineers but we have thousands who are part of
AE911truth.org that disagree.

Nope, find me 100 structural engineers on that list if you can.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to force you to comprehend the ridiculousness of your posting. You literally ignored the questions I gave
you and just copied and pasted from a third party website because you couldn't answer. Then you have the gall to suggest that your random questions
(which are completely incoherent for reasons I can explain if I must) somehow override my questions and that I should answer yours first.

I don't think so. Realise your own failings and that you have no answers for the questions I posed, and we can talk. Otherwise you're just making
yourself look ridiculous by copying and pasting the words of others as you have nothing to say.

I view these over 1500 experts as true patriots and hero's considering the fact that supporting the truth movement at this time is in effect career
suicide. Do you think this makes them ignorant or do you think they feel very strongly about their reasoning and theories?

I think the vast majority of them have said and approved nothing whatsoever. There are not '1500 experts' there. There are many experts in other
topics, but last time I checked I found under 50 Structural Engineers, none with any published criticisms.

The experts I am talking about are for example Bazant, an ISI highly cited scientist who literally wrote the book on a lot of this structural
paper. He is the person people cite when they talk about concrete breaking up, for example.

Trying to leverage a small group with no publications to their name and such ridiculous claims as micro-nukes in their personal statements, is not
going to be effective. The ASCE for example has literally over 100,000 engineers on their rolls, and has not been calling for a public
investigation.

All the items you listed above as being proof of the official theory are also consistent with a controlled demolition. There is no need to go
point by point and second by second through each collapse when the cause was a controlled demolition since this has been demonstrated in the real
world 1000's of times.

The fact is you have no answer to the points I raised, and so you have to weakly fall back on quoting AE911Truth's site. If you think you have a good
explanation, explain the inward bowing of exterior walls. No demolition method can possibly cause this.

You claim to have "actual answers" when all you have is a cobbled together theory that can't be reproduced in a computer model let alone a
physical one.

On the other hand, you literally had no answers and had to resort to copying and pasting from a site telling you what to think. Good job there.

You claim that the official theory is accepted by the whole community of structural engineers but we have thousands who are part of
AE911truth.org that disagree.

Nope, find me 100 structural engineers on that list if you can.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to force you to comprehend the ridiculousness of your posting. You literally ignored the questions I gave
you and just copied and pasted from a third party website because you couldn't answer. Then you have the gall to suggest that your random questions
(which are completely incoherent for reasons I can explain if I must) somehow override my questions and that I should answer yours first.

I don't think so. Realise your own failings and that you have no answers for the questions I posed, and we can talk. Otherwise you're just making
yourself look ridiculous by copying and pasting the words of others as you have nothing to say.

You accuse me of trying to diminish your experts qualifications and tell me it weakens my argument. The you do the EXACT SAME THING. You claim they
have no published criticisms. WHO is going to publish them? Remember the career suicide statement? They are forced to release their findings on the
internet, where you can ignore it. Then you belittle EVERY ONE of the members AE911TRUTH.ORG. The ASCE engineers you mention above no doubt like
having jobs. Public statements about 911 Truth would cause them to lose said job in today's climate. A large percentage of them surely have doubts
or disbelieve the entire OS. But of course that is impossible to prove without talking with every one of them off the record.

What questions do you keep going on about? Do you mean the half dozen little structural failings within this huge building that had to fail
simultaneously for the official theory to make any sense. I see you listed them for me as a challenge. I know you won't accept this but here it
goes:

Pre-set charges on all support structure are set off in sequence down the length of the building. Support structure is effectively removed all the
way to the ground and building falls at nearly free fall speed into its own footprint. What is left is a huge pile of debris. It really can be that
simple in the real world.

You ridicule me for getting info from another site as if i can't think for myself. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on info from other people. Then
you essentially call me stupid and incoherent and belittle me again. I don't think you would be so unpleasant if you actually thought you were
winning this debate. There is no need to paint other people as stupid. Accepting the reality of the truth movement is the ultimate display of
thinking for one's self. Too bad you can't admit that.

Originally posted by scully222
You accuse me of trying to diminish your experts qualifications and tell me it weakens my argument. The you do the EXACT SAME THING.

No, I was honest about the qualifications of the people I was invoking. You apparently don't even know who is involved in AE911Truth.

You claim they have no published criticisms. WHO is going to publish them? Remember the career suicide statement? They are forced to release
their findings on the internet, where you can ignore it.

They have not released any findings. You have literally no idea what you are talking about again. Truthers from other groups have had
professional papers published. They have never had a significant criticism or any significant conspiracy evidence presented.

Then you belittle EVERY ONE of the members AE911TRUTH.ORG. The ASCE engineers you mention above no doubt like having jobs. Public statements
about 911 Truth would cause them to lose said job in today's climate.

Rubbish. Even if this were true for the USA (which it evidently isn't as Richard Gage is the head of the group and is still accredited) then
there are many countries that have no love for the US and have massive engineering groups. Where are their papers?

A large percentage of them surely have doubts or disbelieve the entire OS. But of course that is impossible to prove without talking with
every one of them off the record.

But you feel it's ok to say that they all provide evidence that the 'official story' is false? Talk about hypocrisy.

Pre-set charges on all support structure are set off in sequence down the length of the building. Support structure is effectively removed all
the way to the ground and building falls at nearly free fall speed into its own footprint. What is left is a huge pile of debris. It really can be
that simple in the real world.

This cannot explain columns bowing inwards for minutes before collapse.
This cannot explain the lack of high volume coordinated detonations
This cannot explain the missing truss seats from exterior columns
This cannot explain the early penthouse collapse in WTC7

Out of four things I asked you to explain, you ignored all of them and repeated your fantasy as if it made it reality. It is not, it does not explain
the things I posted and as of 2012, we have no explanations whatsoever from anyone in AE911Truth. They act as if they have a huge publishing history,
when in reality they have simply the work of other 911 groups, mostly discredited. I don't know why you put your faith in such charlatans.

You ridicule me for getting info from another site as if i can't think for myself. Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on info from other
people.

No, it isn't. I wrote every word myself and am responsible for some of the primary research as well. You literally copied and pasted from another
site.

Then you essentially call me stupid and incoherent and belittle me again. I don't think you would be so unpleasant if you actually thought
you were winning this debate. There is no need to paint other people as stupid.

You literally dismissed everything I said, and then pasted the contents of another website even with a little arrogant flourish at the end. I'm
trying to bring you down to a reasonable level rather than you ignoring everything I asked exactly as you have just done again. I'll refrain from any
further insults if you actually take the time to think about the issues and read, rather than instantly assuming your answer is already right.

Accepting the reality of the truth movement is the ultimate display of thinking for one's self. Too bad you can't admit that

This is the most meaningless portion I am afraid, It's not a direct insult so I think it's fair to say, but the 911 truth movement is entirely based
on repeating claims while ignoring reality. If you don't think that is true, then how can I find people claiming 'free fall speed' for WTC1/2
posted within the last 2 weeks, even though we knew that was false a decade ago?

Because they're just repeating it, not thinking. I really would love you to come up with answers to my questions but honestly I just expect you to
repeat yourself verbatim and deny that any other possibility exists.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My floating masses are held up by magic. It is a thought experiment simulated in a computer. No energy must be expended breaking or bending
anything. But why does it still take so long just because of the Conservation of Momentum? Dr. Sunder is saying a real building came down faster
than my thought experiment under physically impossible conditions. Code has nothing to do with it.

I haven't actually checked your code yet, because I went to look into your floor positions and realised you just did 12 * 110.

Psikey. It is a decade after 911, you've been parading yourself around as an expert on the towers now for a long time, you claim that you need
accurate values, but your own model here is hilariously inaccurate.

Not only that, but you use a timestep + overshoot model without even realising or compensating for it.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Do you really think this model provides any useful information whatsoever? Because I don't
believe it does. I've produced my own list of floor heights that actually ends up at a roof (which you forgot about) that weighs the correct amount
and is 1368ft high. I'll get to your python code shortly.

All that bitching about my code and now you say you haven't looked at it?

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

The program is doing computation on the basis of the Conservation of Momentum and gravitational acceleration. So only the conservation of momentum
prevents free fall.

That means it is the relative weights of the masses that affects the collapse time not their absolute value. Since the height is shorter then that
should reduce collapse time.

So why am I getting 12.45 seconds with a 1/1000th time base and Dr. Sunder of the NIST said 11 seconds.

If I keep saying this is grade school physics then how great an expert can I be claiming to be? It looks like the experts need to make this whole
business look complicated. My program demonstrates that changing the distribution of mass affects the collapse time. So why haven't all of the
experts with degrees been saying that since 2002?

By all means write your code. I want to see your resulting collapse times. I will only care about the code if you get significantly different
collapse times from mine. So make yours taller. That should only increase the time and show Dr. Sunder is more wrong. Why would I complain about
that? I know the maintenance levels were 14 feet high, not 12. Since the heights of the levels are in the data file anyone that wants to can change
them. That is not the point.

My only point was that the conservation of momentum alone makes the collapse time too long compared to what happened on 9/11. The trivia you are
brining up just demonstrates that I did not show how bad the official story really was but you want to use that to discredit me rather than explain
the physics better to most people.

By all means continue. Help me show how bad the official story is.

My slightly shorter tower still took too long to collapse. ROFL So full size it would take even longer. My data file only increases the weight by
10 tons each level down. Get us correct data. Show us how much more that would slow things down. The more you do to increase the time the worse you
make the official story.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.